Article

Quantitative study of new bone formation in distraction osteogenesis of craniofacial bones by bone scintigraphy.

Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (Impact Factor: 0.69). 10/2007; 18(5):1236-41. DOI: 10.1097/scs.0b013e3180f61198
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although distraction osteogenesis is widely accepted as a technique to augment the craniofacial skeleton, timing to start distraction after an osteotomy or to remove distractors is basically based on studies on long bones. Because bone scintigraphy is well known to be the gold standard for quantitative measurement of bone formation, we conducted this pilot study to evaluate its feasibility as a tool for assessing new bone formation by distraction osteogenesis. Five patients with midface hypoplasia and four with mandibular hypoplasia were studied. Each patient had five bone scans: before surgery, 3 and 30 days after stopping distraction, and 3 days before and 3 months after distractor removal. Radiotracer uptake values at distraction sites were measured at 1 and 3 hours. Each uptake value was compared with preoperative study as uptake ratio. A typical pattern of radiotracer uptake ratio was observed in all cases with successful distraction. Uptake rose to the maximum during the consolidation period and remained at or above the preoperative level until the study end point. In one patient who had mandibular distraction and nonunion of the right ramus, there was no uptake peak during early consolidation as seen in the successfully distracted body and in the other cases. Bone scintigraphy was found to be a useful investigation in craniofacial distraction. It showed the dynamic of new bone formation by demonstrating the osteoblastic activity, which is important objective information for determining distraction rate and consolidation duration in each case. It may also be a tool that can predict the outcome of distraction osteogenesis.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
210 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Frontofacial advancement by distraction osteogenesis using the rigid external distraction device has become an accepted treatment for the deformity associated with craniofacial dysostoses (e.g., Crouzon, Apert, and Pfeiffer syndromes). The technical and physiological principles of osteogenesis distraction are well understood. This study documents the pattern of calcification at the osteotomy sites after distraction by analysis of serial three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) scans. The CT scans of 25 patients (11 with Crouzon, 6 with Apert, and 8 with Pfeiffer syndrome) were analyzed. Eleven individual areas along the osteotomy lines were assessed for evidence of bone formation. Scores were assigned within 4 categories ranging from no bone, calcification without bridge formation, a bony bridge, to complete bony infill (>95%). The scans were reviewed on 2 separate occasions by 2 independent assessors. There was high concordance both for intraobserver and interobserver scores. Rigid external distraction frame removal was undertaken after a 6-week consolidation period. All CT scan timings were calculated from this date. Of the 25 patients studied, 16 patients had CT scans available at 3 to 6 months, 12 at 9 to 12 months, and 7 at or more than 18 months. The scans were available in standard coronal slices with three-dimensional reconstructions. Bone formation is most consistently seen in the pterygoid region with calcification consistently occurring earlier and more completely in this area. Bone formation was often delayed in the orbital region and severely delayed or absent in the frontal region and zygomatic arches. There was no significant difference in the order or quality of bony union for the 3 underlying craniofacial dysostoses. This preliminary study confirms the clinical impression that bone formation after distraction is greatest in the pterygoid regions. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.
    The Journal of craniofacial surgery 03/2009; 20(2):275-8. · 0.81 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
52 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014